Bennett v. Newsom

Background

David Bennett, who was incarcerated at the Yolo County Jail and proceeding without an attorney, filed this civil action in the Eastern District of California. That court allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed his original complaint with permission to amend. Bennett filed an amended complaint, and the Eastern District transferred the case to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the federal transfer statute.

On April 9, 2024, this Court dismissed the amended complaint because it did not present a claim capable of being decided by a court. The Court gave Bennett 28 days to file a second amended complaint and warned that the case would be dismissed if he did not do so or if the new complaint was insufficient. Bennett did not file another complaint, request an extension, or show cause for failing to comply.

Objections and Discovery Motion

Bennett filed documents labeled “objections” to the order dismissing his amended complaint with permission to amend. The Court explained that a request for a court order must be made through a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7. If Bennett sought reconsideration, the Court said he needed to file a motion under Rule 59(e), which allows a judgment to be altered or amended, or Rule 60(b), which allows relief from a judgment.

Bennett also filed a motion to compel discovery and for sanctions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11 and 37(a). He said he had served the Attorney General’s Office with a copy of the amended complaint, which he described as including a motion for summary judgment and interrogatories. The Court ruled that sending those materials to the Attorney General’s Office did not satisfy Rule 4’s requirement to serve defendants with a summons and complaint.

The Court also stated that Bennett had not presented a claim capable of judicial determination. It cited 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), which requires courts to screen cases filed by prisoners seeking relief from government officials and dismiss claims that fail to state a claim for relief. Because the defendants had not been served and Bennett had not submitted claims he could pursue, they were not required to respond to the amended complaint, motion, or interrogatories.

Ruling

The Court denied Bennett’s motion to compel discovery and for sanctions. Because Bennett did not file the required second amended complaint, request additional time, or show cause, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to enter judgment and close the file. The order resolved docket number 29.